I wrote a doe down I killed at lowndes wma and forgot to get my confirmation number. Handed my license to biologist (not warden but he was in the back room) and he just told me to call it in despite it being a month old. So there also isn't compliance within the system itself. It's all screwed up.

I ended up calling it in to stay "compliant" due to checking a buck in and I know he remembered me from that morning

Actually, if they wanted to get an idea of the deer harvest from year to year, go back a few years and get the records from the processors and get an average of how many are brought in each year. Now this won't tell exactly how many were killed of course, but it will tell you how the kill stands from year to year, i.e. higher, lower, stable.

I just hope that they had to stay in chitty hotels and eat hard boiled eggs and envelope gravy at the continental breakfast like me and others state employees do.

Hey, those old hard boiled eggs they get out of the plastic container to put on the buffet are protein-laden fuel for your brain!

Go back and read my post... I know you're able to carry on a more intelligent conversation than this. Nowhere did I say a trophy minded management was what I think we should do. I see problems with over regulation and under regulation.

You specifically endorsed a system that worked well in Alabama for years. That system protected the baby makers (much like our turkey regulations do). Then regs changed, first in south Alabama, then the whole state to a free for all. Individuals proved then, as they have before, that they don't have the self discipline as whole to manage game. Pulling that trigger is too enticing. They may do it in the name of management, or the name of putting food on the table. Either way we deplete the resource when un regulated. We saw it in the early 1900s, and saw a different version of it through the late 90s and 2000s.

Now, I'm not an anarchist like many of you all, but I believe my suggestion is a pretty good middle of the road approach. We need regulation but we need checks and balances for the officials who implement those regulations. The easiest way I can think of to do that is making the cab an elected position.

So we were "anarchists" until now, for decades?

I can sense that some on here do have a little anarchy in them. Anyone who believes that each individual should be sole responsible for managing the wildlife on their land does favor an anarchists. There is no way that the state could/can rely on each landowner to decide what is best for the wildlife. Like Atoler stated....without some kind of meet in the middle rules, the states herd of deer is a a big disadvantage. I know there are some who is very capable or doing it without diminishing the herd but there are many more who can't. Without some kind of laws, it would leave everything as a free for all and when that happens you will eventually end up the numbers that they had in the early 1900's.

For decades we had at the least, equal restrictions. Shorter season, more restrictive doe harvests, unlimited bucks, no corn...

Compared to now, longer season, 3 bucks, more liberal doe harvest, gamecheck, more liberal corn regs...

Tit for tat at the least. Game check and bucks are the only things I'm aware of that are more restricting nowadays.

My anarchist comment had everything to do with the knee jerk reaction against anything related to the government and little to do with any one regulation.

I like that idea, go to where the deer are being taken to, some might think it's wrong. That's sorta the way it's done for snapper, why go out and look for boats when everyone one of the boats must come thru a pass to get back to land, so dcnr sits at period pass and waits to check whoever they want.

For those against game check/tags/enforcement/etc. what are your thoughts on states like kansas and others where a physical tag system is in place? Y'all think they are wrong too?

To me, game check is simple and non intrusive. If you aren't doing something wrong, and you are managing your deer herd(probably more strict than state laws), it shouldn't really matter.

....but they didn't change the number of deer you can kill for most of the state. You can still legally kill 100 does. If landowners weren't already managing responsibly, would the herd already be at 1900 levels?

You know the numbers are BS when dcnr is taking to the news to try to feel better about what they failed at.

Agencies always use news releases for a variety of things including announcements about programs, projects, etc. The news release is just a recap of the recent CAB meeting highlights. Not really a surprise.

They don't adequately utilize all the forms of news media and social media at their disposal, though, IMO.

Not surprising that they only had 35% participation.

I know many of the deer that come through my shop were not reported.

I had several customers ask me if the GW came by and did any checks because their deer they brought me was not reported on Game Check.

I think they could actually manage just fine by being conservative with doe harvests and letting the rough side drag��.When we last did it, populations apparently grew so much that someone thought we needed to start chootin a bunch of the females. In hind sight that was a mistake. Now they�re just trying to completely reinvent the wheel for some reason.

That's a logical argument

i dont care about other states. just because they have it screwed no reason to screw it up here .

Now known as The Anarchy Period, when landowners had minimal regulatory oversight and obviously couldn't manage themselves worth a toot.

we getting all the shit because , some gotta kill a 200" buck . this started the doe slaughter . they wont be happy till you cant see a difference between the little pen and the big pen .

course along the way they gonna ruin hunting as it is .

Naw, man. It's going to be outstanding. Healthy giants behind every tree and the welfare hunters off the dole. Get with the program, Frankie. C'mon.